Ben Frankel, Homeland Security Newswire
The Israel Defense Force (IDF) has created a new military command – the Strategic Depth Command; this new command, and the new, commando-heavy, look of the IDF’s higher echelon, should tell us that Israel is preparing for a new type of war; adversaries of Israel who have been entertaining the thought that sheer distance from Israel would offer them some protection, may want to think again
At times it is not enough to read a given text — you have to read between the lines as well to get at the deeper meaning. This is the case with the news from Israel that the Israel Defense Force (IDF) has created a new military command – the Strategic Depth Command.
During the past five years the United States, too, has created new military commands to meet new security challenges in new theaters or domains. Thus, the U.S. Cyber Command is now responsible for developing defensive cyber policies which will protect U.S. military and infrastructure assets against cyber attacks. The Cyber Command is also working on information warfare, that is, offensive cyber measures the United States may take to undermine the military and economy of an adversary during a conflict.
The U.S. Africa Command was created to address to growing presence of Islamic terrorists in the continent’s failed states, such as Somalia, and in weak states such as Niger, Mauritania, Nigeria, and others. Another mission of the Africa Command is to develop policies for protecting U.S. interests on the continent in the event that climate-driven droughts and water shortages will generate mass migration of people across borders.
The IDF’s new Strategic Depth command should be considered in this light: an organizational and doctrinal response to new security challenges.
Some journalists referred to the new command as the “Iran Command,” but the challenges Israel faces in areas far from its borders are not limited to Iran. Two recent examples:
A few months ago, during the height of the anti-Qaddafi rebellion in Libya, Israeli commandos killed two Hamas operatives in Sudan. These operatives were on their way back from Libya after negotiating a deal with some rebel leaders to sell Hamas chemical warheads from Qaddafi’s arsenal. Iran was paying for the chemical weapons to be delivered to Hamas.
A couple of years ago a Syrian general was assassinated in his vacation home in north Syria. The general was in charge of Syrian-Iranian cooperation on ballistic missile and nuclear weapons, and Israel decided that that cooperation had gone far enough and needed to be slowed down.
Some may argue that Israel already has three arms doing, or planning to do, work in areas far from the borders of Israel:
The Mossad, Israel’s secret service, has been killing Hamas and Hezbollah operatives, and Iranian nuclear scientists and generals, for a decade and a half now. During the past five years the Mossad has also added blowing up Iranian nuclear labs, missile bases, and weapons storage facilities (not only in Iran, but also Hezbollah’s depots in South Lebanon), to its menu.
The IDF’s secretive 8200 Unit has successfully launched cyber attacks on Syria in September 2007, and on Iran in 2010 (Stuxnet).
The Israel Air Force will be the military arm trusted with taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities if the order to attack Iran is given.
Yet, there was a growing sense in Israeli security circles that there was a need for more. Israel has several Special Forces-type units, each with different specialties and capabilities. It has been the case, however, that these units were utilized more effectively between wars. When wars broke, these units’ heavier siblings – the army, air force, and navy – took over, relegating the specialized commando units to the margins.
Supporters of the new command pointed out that the new reality of war required a new approach, entailing a more effective harnessing of these commando units’ qualities and capabilities. For example, in the event of growing tensions with Syria, it may be a better idea to disable Syrian missile batteries by inserting Israeli commando units deep behind Syrian lines to paralyze these batteries by means other then aerial bombardment.
We should note that during the first Iraq war, in 1991, Israel was readying specialized ground forces for operation in western Iraq. Their mission was to hunt down and destroy mobile Scud missile: U.S. Air Force pilots found it exceedingly difficult to locate these missiles from the air, and Israel was growing increasingly frustrated with the nightly barrages of Scuds falling on Israeli cities (some forty Iraq missiles were launched at Israel, causing some damage to building). Israel eventually relented to American pressure and agreed not to send Israeli forces to Iraq.
In the case of Iran, there may well be nuclear labs and other nuclear-related sites which the Iranian leadership has purposely located near – or under – civilian population centers in order to deter an attack on such sites. A commando operation would be more suitable way to destroy these facilities than attacking them from the air.
To disrupt Iranian command and control in the run up to a war, Israel may find it useful to take out a few political leaders and commanders of the Republican Guard. Some of these operations may require a presence on the ground, and the new command will have at its disposal very good commando units to carry out such missions.
The new command will not rely solely on special forces. Rather, it is understood that it will also plan to use land, air, and naval forces for coordinated attacks deep in enemy territory, aiming to disrupt and destabilzie adversaries.
The creation of the new command dovetails with another interesting development at the higher echelons of the IDF. Both Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu served in the hush-hush Sayeret Matkal (the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit). The two of them have appointed — or will soon appoint — to the top positions in the IDF officers who had their formative military experience, and who rose to prominence, in the IDF’s equivalent of the Special Forces or the Navy SEALS (the special forces background of these generals is given in parentheses):
-
Aviv Kokhavy, head of Military Intelligence (paratroopers’ “Orev” unit)
Ram Rotberg, commander of the Israeli Navy (Flotilla 13, the naval commando unit)
Tal Russo, head of the Southern Command (Sayeret Matkal; Unit 5101 [Special Surface-Air Designation Team, also known as the Shaldag Unit]; Unit 212 [Sayeret Maglan])
Yair Golan, head of the Northern Command (paratroopers’ “Orev” unit)
Nitzan Alon, head of the Central Command (Sayeret Matkal)
Eyal Isenberg, commander of civil defense (Unit 5101)
We should also recall that the Barak and Netanyahu preferred General Yoav Galant (Flotilla 13) to succeed General Gabi Ashkenazi as the new chief of staff, but their plan was scuttled owing to problems with Galant’s conduct regarding personal real estate matters.
The IDF’s new Strategic Depth Command, and the new, commando-heavy, look of the IDF’s higher echelon, should tell us that Israel is preparing for a new type of war. Adversaries of Israel may have entertained the thought that sheer distance from Israel would offer them some protection. They may want to think again.
Good question. All I can say, is that the US hasn’t attacked Iran yet because the Iranians haven’t provoked the US to attack yet. If they try to mine the Straits of Hormuz, though, the US will attack them; and if they attack our missile defense battery in Turkey, we might attack and maybe we’ll just slap their hands. In my opinion, that base is forfeit anyway, because the Turks will turn on us.
Another good question. America’s mission? To build an empire, of course. Control of the Persian Gulf is an important element of that control. That’s why we backed Sadaam Hussein against the Iranians (and backed the Iranians as well); then when Sadaam invaded Kuwait, we went in to put him in place. When he seemed to be about to make WMDs, we went in again. That was a trap against us, because we painted ourselves into a corner. We could destroy Iraq, but we couldn’t hold it. Now we’ve run away with our tail between our legs, Iraq is a vacuum waiting to be filled by either the Iranians or the Turks, and our prestige among our Gulf allies is on a shaky footing. If we let the Iranians bully their way around there, the Gulf states will, one after another, cave in and become Iranian puppets and we will lose the Gulf. Maybe Obama wants that, because he is a madman; I don’t know.
Israel’s mission is a lot simpler: Take out the nukes. They should do that, on their own, and to hell with the US! They’re not in this to build an empire, nor to play any other silly game: The’re in this for the sake of their very existence. Either Washington will understand this and cooperate, or the US will be caught off-balance and have to deal with the Iranians from a disadvantage. Either way, the US will have to fight the Iranians.
If Israel caves in, and stupidly allows the Iranians to go nuclear while the US corporations try to maximize their profits over this expedition, they have only themselves to blame. There will be war anyway, because Iraq is still empty and SOMEONE has to fill the void; and the Iranians will be insane with ecstasy at having beaten the Americans. They will occupy S. Iraq, and the Turks will occupy the N., and there will be war — and the US, having lost the Persian Gulf, will either piss in its pants and watch or get involved.
That’s how I see it right now.
To BlandOatmeal,
Let us review for a minute. Iran’s nuclear threat to Israel is something that Israel could have easily taken care of before the US invaded Iraq. The US invaded Iraq occupied it for — what was it — three, four years? This might have been a good time for the US to do something about Iran’s nuclear program, especially since Iran’s nuclear program would certainly be a threat to a free Iraq. But no, the US didn’t do anything and they wouldn’t let Israel do anything, because this would alienate the “allies” of the US in Iraq. So now the US is gone and Iran’s nuclear program is on the verge of fielding a nuclear weapon.
If the US is now firmly committed to fighting Iran, then why aren’t we fighting them already? And what is the mission for a military confrontation between the US, any of its allies, and Iran? All that is necessary is that we take out their nuclear weapons program. End of job. Is somebody seriously imagining that the US is going to put combat troops inside of Iran? Is anyone seriously imagining some sort of naval combat? No. Nothing is going to happen except the US is going to, once again, get in the way of Israel doing something about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This is what is most apparent in the current maneuvering around Iran. The US has made a commitment to the acceptability of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This advances the ghettoization of Israel and encourages further dependence of Israel militarily on the US and NATO. The ghettoization of Israel, its existence as “special”, is what the Obamination imagines is the key to pacifying Israel’s antisemitic neighbors. If Israel is to exist, it will have to live in fear, this is what makes it so special. But this is the job of Jews in any ghetto, to constantly live in fear. And we who watch skeptically are expected to learn similar behavior.
And all this defense gizmo stuff is what is being offered in exchange for this subjegation. The romantic Jewish warriors will perpetually be on guard everywhere in defense of the “special” state of Israel, but only as long as they never do anything that actually changes anything. And as long as they never actually change anything, we will always need them, and their masters and engineers in the US and Europe.
Israel’s military and civil defense problems are simple and anything but simple solutions are suspect because the obstacles to confronting them simply have no legitimacy.
This is the latest war-related post that is drawing any comments. I believe the situation has been subtly changing. The US is now firmly committed to fighting Iran, and the ones who will set off the spark could well be the Iranians themselves.
US President Barack Obama would not fight Israel’s enemies for the sake of Israel. In fact, he is very much opposed to Israel: He is cozy with Israel’s next major enemy Turkey, who is likely to come into direct conflict with the Israelis, Cypriots and Greeks on a moment’s notice. Obama is also a prop of the Muslim Brotherhood, who hope to surround Israel in Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Iranians are forcing Obama’s hand, however, as they did in 1973, compelling him to be on the same side as Israel by default.
Two items especially are causing this policy change: (1) persistent Iranian threats to attack the US missile defense battery in Turkey, should any sort of hostilities arise, and (2) the Iranian naval exercises in the Straits of Hormuz, and the persistently voiced threat by the Iranians to mine the straits even if the US does not attack, but merely tightens sanctions.
This is an election year, and Obama is in something of a bind because he wants the financial support of some significant Jewish donors. That is definitely in Israel’s favor, but I wouldn’t lean too heavy on it. Former US President Eisenhower was also in an election year in 1956, in the very final stages of it, when he took the very radical step of partnering with America’s greatest enemy, the Soviet Union, in order to turn against Israel. Fortunately for Israel, Jews had no clout whatever in Ike’s party, but they still have some pull in Obama’s.
The situation today is more like that of the Yom Kippur war, when then-President Nixon was compelled to help Israel in order to deny the Soviets an advantage. He had been Ike’s VP in 1956, and knew how foolish it had been to let the Egyptians get Suez. Turncoat Jew Henry Kissinger tried to persuade Nixon against timely help for Israel, but failed.
Britain and France will also be allied against Iran. There is probably massive pressure on Israel, to repeat Desert Storm and simply sit back and absorb an existential threat from Israel. The stakes are enormously higher today, though, and I think Washington is beginning to get the picture.
To Paul and Michael, one must be able to fight wars in more ways than one. The USA has akwaysbeen able to project its might from afar with it’s navy, especially it’s carriers. Israel has no such luxury so it’s “carriers” will have to be it’s social forces. No one is saying that you disband the army but while the enemy might not tremble at the thought of Israeli physical invasion, it’s leaders will sleep far less comfortably if they and their toys are rendered dead and useless.
Hmm. I thought the biggest threat to Israel was from the charedim in Ramat Beit Shemesh. Even Hillary is throwing digs. I agree with Paul. How about pushing back (and eliminating) the enemies at the gates?
Is this completely ridiculous or what? Israel’s far enemies are to tremble when Israel lacks the ability to remove threats from right next door? Or maybe, even more ominous, this is part of a deal. The US props up these “elite” units in exchange for accepting abuse and threats from Gaza and J&S. Is it worth it to take on all this gold plated, super secret crap and become a ghetto instead of standing up with what you got and acting as a nation? This is just more meddling from Israel’s enemies in the US.